This is partially a complaint directed at my fellow Wazers and partially a suggestion/data analysis conundrum for the developers. It might be a feature request, but since it's more than that I'm putting it in the main forum. Moderators, free to disagree and move it.

It seems to be human nature, at least everywhere I've lived in the States, to say, "Ooh, bad traffic. Must be an accident." In Waze, this turns into thirty people reporting accidents when they're actually just sitting in bad traffic.

Most bad traffic is just that: bad traffic. Some moron was driving 40 MPH in the passing lane an hour ago, and thanks to breaking laminar flow he or she has caused a full traffic stoppage.

The Waze app should be clear: unless you can actually see the accident, do not report an accident.

On the developers' side, it would be interesting to try and puzzle out the real accidents from the data. Get a dataset of reported accidents and find a way to filter it to confirmed accidents. Then, look at the relationship between the submissions and the false alarms.

There is already in Waze such system, basically if you report something and some others drive through it and no one give you a Thumb up, then you will "lose" trust, and your reports won't be taken so serious next time.

felohidalgo wrote:There is already in Waze such system, basically if you report something and some others drive through it and no one give you a Thumb up, then you will "lose" trust, and your reports won't be taken so serious next time.

I'm new...is there some sort of built in reputation to waze? If that is indeed how the system works, seems like it needs some improvement...because it would be penalizing users for reporting incidents on infrequently traveled or rural routes. I don't like the idea that I could be penalized in some way because I reported a legitimate incident/hazard whjch is already cleared by the time the next wazer passes that point.

The voting system doesn't solve the problem: Someone ahead reports, "Hey, there's an accident!" Someone else, farther upstream in the traffic, sees that accident report and gives it a thumbs up because they also perceive that "bad traffic must mean there's an accident." Indeed, confirmation bias would suggest that trailing vehicles are more likely to perceive that there was an accident even if they never see one.

Edward50095 wrote:"Most bad traffic is just that: bad traffic. Some moron was driving 40 MPH in the passing lane an hour ago, and thanks to breaking laminar flow he or she has caused a full traffic stoppage."

Let me guess: You pretty much stay in the left lane don't you? It's a passing lane, not "laminar flow".

The left lane is for passing; move back to the right when you're done. Thanks in advance.

This is regional.

Yes, slower traffic should move to the right as a common courtesy, but most states do not have an actual law that states that the "fast" lane is only for passing.

In Los Angeles, and other cities where you have 4 lanes, every lane is utilized 100% all day... and the moron doing 40mph in the left lane causes serious issues with normal traffic having to move to the right to pass.